Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @12:55PM
from the welcome-to-the-app-mall dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Last year Apple quietly authorized private-label app stores with its OTA (over-the-air) protocol, and now an Apple spin-off is offering the first hosting service to uses OTA to create alternative app stores for iOS devices like the iPhone and iPad. One of the first is Cisco's App Fridge (for cool networking apps), but a dozen other Fortune 500 companies have also signed up. And this fall, Apperian promises to add Android apps to its service, enabling one-stop-shopping for private-label apps store hosted in the clouds. So far these store are for employees only, but by 2012 Apperian claims it will be offering alternative app stores for the rest of us."

Just a hint to "Smarter Technology". If you want someone to believe what you're saying, or even be able to read it, you might figure out a way to flow paragraphs so that wordsdon't smashtogetherall of the time.

it isnt, but its not a disadvantage either...being able to commision and customize devices is important to the enterprise... apple knew, that if they wanted to compete in that market, they had to allow it... and they did... so they can... it doesnt make apple better, the story is, they arent *worse..

* They might be worse, but for the sake of discussion, my point remains.

Can these distribute apps that duplicate Apple functionality (music player, email client, browser, etc)? Could someone create an application that creates an accessible filesystem? If so, this actually goes a long way towards reducing my dislike of the iDevices.

Can these distribute apps that duplicate Apple functionality (music player, email client, browser, etc)? Could someone create an application that creates an accessible filesystem? If so, this actually goes a long way towards reducing my dislike of the iDevices.

They can do anything the enterprise allows, within the limits iOS imposes on apps (so full filesystem access isn't allowed - you're sandboxed unless you run your app jailbroken).

But that "priviledge" comes at the cost of an enterprise development fee

These are enterprise apps for internal use by an organization. Enterprise apps have always been handled differently than the regular apps for consumers on the Apple App Store.

My understanding is that the organization maintains a list of device IDs allowed to use the app. They submit the list to Apple, Apple signs it, and returns the signed list as a provisioning file. The enterprise then distributes the app and the provisioning file to users, there is even a wireless method that the enterprise can set up

You don't need a list of device IDs for enterprise distribution. An enterprise-level development account, with the appropriate distribution provisioning, is sufficient.

Using OTA enterprise distribution, I set up something similar for the place I work. An added benefit is that our in-house apps automatically check for updates when they're launched and prompt to update themselves if necessary. As far as I can tell, this "private-label app store" thing is pure media hype. As others have said, this is si

That's $99 for the ordinary developer program, which gets you App Store apps as well as Ad-Hoc apps, limited to distribution to a few devices picked from a list that may only contain 100 devices per year. The Enterprise program, which gets you arbitrary distribution apps that you're only supposed to use inside your company, requires $299 and a DUNS number (some sort of business identifier) to keep the commoners out. (There used to be a prerequisite of hundreds of employees which was recently removed, so the

Basically, Apple tried to sell iPhones and iPads as enterprise devices. IT departments looked at them and laughed, pointing out that they need to be able to deploy custom in-house apps to them. Apple for once listened to a customer (so maybe the world really is ending) and agreed to allow in-house app stores for customer enterprise apps.

No. This is nothing new. Enterprise apps have always been distributed internally. If not from day 1 then from *very* soon afterwards. I recall having to select regular or enterprise accounts when signing up with Apple in 2008.

What may have been added in recent history, a year or so ago (?), is the wireless distribution option.

Basically, Apple tried to sell iPhones and iPads as enterprise devices. IT departments looked at them and laughed, pointing out that they need to be able to deploy custom in-house apps to them.

Dude stop smoking crack OK? Crack Kills your brain.

Medical organizations are mobilizing on the iPad. This is their dream device. A doc can walk around with it, take notes, show patients X-Rays, write prescriptions on it, write orders on it and all in a very nicely organized standardized way. And you know that little connector on the bottom of it? Well think dongle. Think credential holder. Think all kinds of things and when the new one with an HD display is ready you can bet that radiologists with be

The device is fine. The speed at which they are being adopted is blinding. If you have ever worked in health care then you know this already.

Those windows apps are going to fall by the wayside faster then you can imagine. The iPad been on the market less then a year and it is taking the computing world by storm. The iPad 2 will further fuel this technology and drive it further and further into every aspect of every business. I predict that within one year that you will see your doctor charting you on o

Where I work, we (meaning the IT support people) have been dreading the rumblings of having iPhones and iPads approved for use within the company. The biggest fear was that the security folks would try to lock down the devices, and having to listen to people complaining that they couldn't load music and applications, blaming us for the resulting mess. But this would not only help us in being able to remind folks that the devices are company devices, but that instead of having to deal with iTunes on the ma

It's a security issue. The iPhone and iPad are not exactly stellar when it comes to Enterprise-level security. And you have to remember that the devices do not belong to the end users, it belongs to the company and it should be the company's decision as to what is allowed to be loaded on the device and what isn't.

This is no different than locking down a laptop so that unauthorized software cannot be loaded on the laptop unless it comes from a company-run and provided website/service. I wouldn't want t

It's a security issue. The iPhone and iPad are not exactly stellar when it comes to Enterprise-level security.

They're better than Android or WP7 in their current incarnations. At least you can specify what people can and can't do with the device in an enterprise environment and actually provision it with a standardized profile. The only better smartphone platform is Blackberry + BES; and we all know how great their smartphones are lately.

The company sure does have that right. The question is if the company is going to do that then why would the users want the devices at all?If I was a user at the company I would rather not have the company iPhone at all with those restrictions, since I would be carrying two devices.

Unless the device is jailbroken I fail to see what having a few games would hurt. This sounds more like control for its own sake than anything else.

That's fine if your staff use the same applications all the time to do the same things. Accountants, bankers, insurance brokers etc. fit this profile nicely, as do secretaries and PAs using Word. These things don't require innovation or free thought. They are essentially administrative tasks.

Once you have an employee that does specialized or varied work the model becomes very broken - think software developers, scientists, engineers. The whole reason we had a PC revolution is that it put power in the hands

Really I know tons of people who have installed dozens and dozens of apps on their iDevices and have not jailbroken them. Have they done so through magic? Or are you conflating the ability to install apps that almost no average user cares about with not being able to install anything at all?

No, he is stating that his enterprise would limit the apps the user could install. Which made me wonder why then those users would still desire such devices. If the device would be that crippled then you have to carry around two phones.

They were approved over a year ago here. We have to support them, but are not given any to train with for said support. You still need iTunes, as they expect you to back up your iPad or iPhone in case you mess it up and it gets wiped. But the iTunes install requires an Administrator login, which not too many users have. They're not locked down in any way except that, once they are synced to our Exchange server, we can remotely wipe them. But that requires them to be connected to the Internet and access to c

Apperian isn't a spinoff from Apple. It was founded by the SE director (Chuck Goldman) in the old enterprise sales group who got his ass canned for any number of things done out of sorts.
In no way shape or form is this even related to Apple other than it's a product for iOS.